Indian Journal of Health and Well-being © 2020 Indian Association of Health, Research and Welfare

2020, 11(1-3), 66-74 ISSN-p-2229-5356,e-2321-3698, NAAS Ratings 4.13

http://www.iahrw.com/index.php/home/journal_detail/19#list https://doi.org/10.15614/IJHW.v11i01.15

Practitioners' involvement and challenges, they encountered in

curriculum development: The case of secondary schools in
Amhara Sayint Woreda, Amhara Region, Ethiopia
Solomon Melesse and Mulu Melesse
Department College of Education and Behavioral Sciences
Teacher Education and Curriculum Studies, Bahir Dar University, Ethiopia

The purpose of this study was to assess practitioners' perceived involvement and challenges they encountered in the
process of curriculum development in Secondary schools of Amhara Sayintworeda. Mixed research design was
employed to provide answer to the basic questions of this research. The sample consisted of 125 secondary school
teachers, 3 school principals, 4 vice principals, and 1 supervisor. Proportional random sampling technique was used
to select the sample teachers and comprehensive sampling technique was used to select the sample school
principals, vice principals, and the supervisor. The data was collected through questionnaire and semi-structured
interview. The collected data was analyzed using percentage, one sample t-test and thematic description. The
findings indicated low practitioners' perceived involvement in all the curriculum development phases other than
curriculum implementation. Absence of financial and material incentives and practitioners' lack of motivation were
considered as the major inhibiting factors for practitioners' involvement in the different phases of the curriculum
development process. On the basis of the major findings, relevant recommendations are suggested in the paper.

Keywords: curriculum development process, participation, challenges, phases of curriculum development

We live in a swiftly changing world. That is, the world is exhibiting
rapid changes in the aspects of technology, social, political, and
economical. This demands every nation to be responsive to these
rapid changes and continuously update its education system
(Lowden, 2005). This implies that education plays an important role
in the economic development in general and producing skilled
manpower of any country in particular. That is why Varghese (2008)
pointed out that education shapes the present as well as the future in
light of knowledge, skill and attitudes, and in the transformation of
important ideas within a society. Generally, education is of the
highest priority in the overall development endeavor of any nation. In
this line, Alsubaie (2016) noted that the goal of a successful
education program in general and effective curriculum in particular
should be directed towards meeting the current demands of the
respective culture and the expectations of the population being
served. For education to play its role in the overall development
activities, therefore, it needs to have appropriately developed,
modified and improved curriculum.
Curriculum development is central to the effectiveness of the
teaching-learning process. It includes all the planning and guiding of
the teaching-learning process at educational institutions. It is carried
out either in groups or individually, inside or outside a classroom, in
an institutional setting, or in a field (Rogers & Taylor, 1998).
Curriculum development should also be viewed as a process
whereby student needs are met that further leads to the improvement
of their learning and it should be seen as something dynamic
Corresponding Author:
Solomon Melesse
Associate Professor, Department College of Education and
Behavioral Sciences, Teacher Education and Curriculum Studies
Bahir Dar University, Ethiopia
E-mail: solomonmelessebdu@gmail.com
(Alsubaie, 2016). That is, curriculum must be a living document that
is in constant flux. It must be adaptable to changes in the
educational community in particular and in society in general.
Only then will it be able to be an effective change agent in the
educational process. However, many individuals, especially
educators in both developed and developing countries believe that
the process of curriculum development is very complex. This
complex task requires the participation of many individuals
(curriculum specialists, boards of education, educational
publishers, principals & many other concerned bodies) in the
different phases of the curriculum development process
(AmdeSellassie, 1989; Bishop, 1989; Linda, 1997). Furthermore,
individuals who are directly involved in student instruction are
considered as a vital piece in successful curriculum development
and revision attempts (Johnson, 2001). Similarly, changing the
curriculum is a cumulative and an ongoing endeavor. An effort to
create opportunities for a wider participation of different
stakeholders to build a body of evidence for the curriculum
development at tempts in an on-going basis is considered crucial
(Burgess, 2004; as cited in Tefera & Wudu, 2016).
Teachers are the most powerful participants in the entire
processes of education and should be aware of all the factors
involved in the curriculum development process (Solomon &
Ashalew, 2019; Pratt, 1980; Frymier & Hawn, 1970). Creating
awareness regarding the various factors affecting the curriculum
development process provides a chance for the participants to
develop rational, relevant, and effective curricula. Hence,
curriculum development must be done in such a way that it takes full
account of all the relevant factors in its process. Supporting this
view, Hawes (1979) stated that teachers should take part in making
decisions about agencies for change, the how of coordinating
change, the selection of methods of change, checking the extent of
change, the priorities of change, the timing of change,
 Indian Journal of Health and Well-being 2020, 11(1-3), 66-74
channels of communication in the change process, and relationship
with other agencies during change implementation in the curriculum
development process. This will provide an opportunity for teachers
to add knowledge, skills and experiences in curriculum
development. Similarly, Bishop (1988) gives emphasis to teachers'
involvement in the curriculum development process when he says:
Innovations invariably fall through because they are formulated in
vacuous by curriculum development experts and then imposed on
schools where teachers are unprepared, with neither the inclination
nor knowledge to implement them. Teachers, therefore, do impolite
noises concerning these bother-some innovations and proceed with
the business of preparing their pupils for public examinations.
Manifestly, educational change can only succeed when teachers are
sufficiently impressed by the validity of the new approach and
thoroughly grounded in the techniques necessary for its
implementation. In short, the teacher is the key to educational
innovation (p.189).
Other scholars (e.g., Bonser & Grundy, 1988) further confirmed
that teachers are the primary participants in the process of
deliberation in the different phases of the curriculum development
process. Teachers' contribution in the curriculum development
process could be in the form of making reflections, clarifications and
elaborations about the innovation in context. Teachers can also use
curricula when trying to see what to teach to students and when, as
well as what the rubrics should be, what kind of worksheets they
should develop, among other things. Similarly, it is asserted that
changes in education are impossible without the participation of
teachers (UNESCO, 2005). This preposition confirms that teachers
are the back bone of curriculum development activities. However,
Doll (l996) noted that almost all the teachers might not be aware of
their professional responsibilities related to developing, improving
and implementing the curriculum due to reasons like government
norms, technological developments, social, economic, political and
other factors. However, there will be no real hope for effective
curriculum development in any nation in the absence of in-service
training of teachers (Solomon & Aschalew, 2019). Teachers may
show a strong desire to improve their work and they may be eager to
meet the interests of their students. But teachers may be unable to
make real progress in curriculum experimentation, revision and
innovation without guidance in the arrangement of materials in some
sort of order and taking seasonal capacity building training.
The empowerment of teachers plays a significant role in the CDP.
In this line, Fullan (1991) argued that teachers' involvement in the
curriculum development process leads to effective achievement of
educational reform. Similarly, teachers should be empowered to see,
analyze and integrate the needs, feelings and aspirations of their
respective students with their communities and the national needs
(Solomon, 1999). During this process, specific local context desires
and ideals are incorporated in a cyclic process of design,
implementation and evaluation to achieve concrete results in practice
(Akker & Kuiper, 2007). In this line, curriculum development has six
steps namely problem identification or needs assessment, policy
formulation, design of goals and objectives, constructing
educational strategies, implementation, and evaluation and feedback
(Kern, 2009).
A needs assessment is a means used for curriculum developers to
determine and prioritize educational needs. McNeil (1996) defined
the term needs assessment as a means of reaching consensus over
future directions for a curriculum by determining the discrepancy
67
between current and preferred situations. Needs analysis is a major
action to be taken in the design and development of any educational
program. In this line, Altschuld and Witkin (1995) recognized that
needs analysis is a set of systematic procedures pursued in order to
establish priorities based on identified needs and make decisions
related to the improvement of a program. Teachers' involvement in
this phase of the curriculum development focuses on collecting
information about the concerns of the stakeholders and be used as a
possible source of information for decision making about areas of
priority (Veena, 2016). Teachers should play a pivotal role in this process
if effective and relevant curriculum development is to take place.
Policy formulation is a key for any nation in satisfying the needs
of the various stakeholders. In this line, it is pointed out that
participatory policy formulation of the various stake holders
including teachers, teacher unions, policy makers, academics,
politicians, media and pressure groups is very much crucial (Marsh,
l992; Pratt, 1980). Therefore, teachers' participation in policy-
formulation made the process of curriculum change and innovation
to be effectively and efficiently implemented. Also, teachers will
have an opportunity to add their knowledge, skills and experiences
as a result of their attempts to enrich the policy. The rise of different
governments to power was accompanied by educational reforms
and policy changes in Ethiopia (Solomon, 2015). In the history of
Ethiopian modern education, three major educational reforms have
been taken place at different periods of time (Alemayehu &
Solomon, 2017; MoE, 2002). These educational reforms were the
Education Sector Review (hereafter ESR), the Evaluative Research
on the General Education System of Ethiopia (hereafter ERGESE)
and the current Education and Training Policy (hereafter ETP).
During these reforms, there were curricular change processes. The
education sector review was a top down approach (Seyoum, 1996).
As a result, teachers had not received an opportunity to participate in
the process of educational reform. Again, at the ERGESE, the
participation of teachers in the reform was not beyond filling
questionnaire. But a small attempt was made to realize teacher
participation in the curriculum development process in the current
Education and Training Policy (ETP) of Ethiopia. In this regard,
Solomon (2015) proposed that producing dynamic curriculum
requires the participation of teachers. This will create a great
opportunity for teachers to properly serve the needs of all students
and help the teachers to develop the higher-level skills.
Designing/planningis one of the basic curriculum activities.
According to Messick and Reynods (1991), the curriculum design
and planning phase takes place both outside the classroom in
committee meetings, through individual teacher's personal efforts
and at public meetings. Similarly, Ornstein and Hunkins (2013)
purported that curriculum design is the way we conceptualize the
curriculum and arrange its major components (subject matter
content, instructional methods & material, learner experiences or
activities) to provide directions and guidance as we develop the
curriculum. Furthermore, Carl (2009) indicates that this is the phase
during which a new curriculum is planned or during which re-
planning and reviewing of an existing curriculum is done after a full
re-evaluation has been carried out. Planning and designing
thoroughly leads to a systematic construction of the curriculum.
Nevertheless, those actions would be meaningless if the teachers are
not aware of producing outputs and have little skill to implement the
curriculum in their classes. So, teachers are central in designing and
planning the curriculum.
68 MELESSE AND MELESSE/ PRACTITIONERS’ INVOLVEMENT AND CHALLENGES, THEY ENCOUNTERED
The fourth phase in the CDP is curriculum construction. The task of
curriculum development in this phase is related to constructing
curriculum materials such as the syllabus, textbooks, teachers'
guides and other support materials. According to Marsh (2009), the
curriculum materials include student textbooks and teachers' guides
written at a level, carefully sequenced and illustrated, which includes
exercises and questions, teachers teaching methods of a specific
subject, content and methodology suggestions, etc. In this line, it is
argued that the curriculum construction phase should involve a series
of planned activities, such as writing workshops, consultation events
(such as forums, community meetings & meetings with selected
stakeholders) and piloting significant ideas (UNESCO, 2017).
With regards to the role played by teachers in the curriculum
implementation phase, scholars (e.g., Shiundu & Omulando, 1992)
confirmed that teachers play the most important role in realizing the
successful implementation of the programs. Accordingly, teachers
are those who organize learning experiences and manage the
learning environment for the benefit of their respective learners.
Thus, teachers' commitment and attitudes, competences, and
interaction patterns become a crucial factor for curriculum
implementation. This means that curriculum implementation cannot
be effective if there is no true participation of teachers in the
instructional process.
Curriculum evaluation is a crucial aspect of curriculum
development. In this regard, Wheeler in Carl (2009) argued that
evaluation enables us to compare the actual outcomes with the
expected outcomes and arrive at conclusions about this comparison
with a view to future action. Moreover, Marsh and Willis (1995)
disclosed that curriculum evaluation includes studying how teachers
and students interact with each other and with a curriculum or
syllabus in a particular setting, which implies that valid evaluation of
the curriculum is the result of teachers' participation in its process.
With regards to teachers' participation in curriculum evaluation,
Marew (2000) also noted that teachers are expected to assume
significant responsibility for explaining the materials and structuring
the learning activities.
Therefore, the success of innovations depends on the extent of
teachers' participation. That is, the process of curriculum
development could not bring radical improvement by itself unless
teachers are actively participated in the process. Thus, further study
on secondary school teachers' perceived involvement and the
possible challenges obstructing their participation in the CDPis
essential.
Statement of the problem
The quality of the curriculum is the most vital factor in determining
the efficacy, feasibility and efficiency of an education system. There
are, however, many challenges in the CDP. One of the critical
challenges in the educational systems of many developing countries
is related to failure to enhancing quality in education. As a result, all
members of a given society who will be affected by the curriculum
should be actively participate in its decision-making process.
Particularly, teachers are central in this decision-making process as
they are mainly responsible in implementing the curriculum as the
successful implementation of the curriculum is significantly affected
by the extent of participation of teachers in its development process
(Fullan & Pomfret, 1977; as cited in Kimpston & Rogers, 1988).
Similarly, Short (1983) as cited in Kimpston and Rogers (1988) also
stated that allowing the participation of teachers in the curriculum
development process is an effective strategy. As a result, the
participation of teachers in the process of curriculum development
could increase the degree of professional responsibility in
developing and implementing the curriculum.
Basically, the participation of teachers in the process of
curriculum development has a lot of advantages in making the
educational system efficient, effective and economical. That is why
many countries strongly suggest the participation of teachers in the
process of curriculum development in different degrees and levels.
However, teachers might not feel that they have professional
responsibility and roles in the curriculum development process
because of different reasons. In this line, Alsubaie (2016) stated that
all teachers will not have the chance to be involved in any CDP. The
same idea is expressed by Doll (l996) i.e., teachers are uncertain
about how much they influence in the area of curriculum and they
believe that they have only advisory role and responsibility. This is a
critical misconception problem of teachers, which needs to be
addressed in this study.
The current Education and Training Policy of Ethiopia (1994) is
caught up between those contesting challenges of improving the
existing system and expanding the system with the intention of
addressing new challenges and problems. The curriculum
decentralization process in Ethiopia has to create a mechanism by
which secondary school teachers should participate in the designing,
constructing, translating, evaluating, and improving of the
secondary school curriculum and curriculum materials. Whether an
innovation succeeds or not depends upon the teacher's hands as they
are one of the determinants of change. But policy makers in general
and curriculum specialists in particular may design and plan the
curriculum without involving teachers. Recent reports and
documents in the Ethiopian context indicate that teachers are not
properly involved in the curriculum development process (MoE,
2002). In addition, Niggussie (2008) contended that both federally
and regionally developed curricular materials failed to involve
teachers in most aspects of the CDP.
Although studies related to the curriculum and curriculum
development of the education system are very much limited in the
Ethiopian context (Solomon & Aschalew, 2019) experiences of the
CDP in general, and its practices at all levels of education in Ethiopia
have never been without criticisms in the history of the Ethiopian
modern education system (Alemayehu & Solomon, 2017).
Challenges associated with curriculum and curriculum development
are rooted in many ways in each level of education irrespective of the
fields of studies and/or the subjects to be taught/ learned and the
skills, competencies, attitudes to be developed in the Ethiopian
education system (Solomon & Aschalew, 2019).
In spite of the above challenges, these days, it seems that the
Ethiopian culture of participating teachers during curriculum
development has shown some improvement as we retrospectively
see it starting from the beginning to the present situation
(Alemayehu & Solomon, 2017). But, still a number of Ethiopian
researchers (e.g., Awgichew, 2012; Melke, 2009; Amede, 2003)
confirmed the existence of little teacher participation in the CDP. In
spite of confirming very low teacher participation in the curriculum
development process, these studies failed to indicate the degree of
teachers' participation at each phase of the curriculum development
process and the challenges encountered in the curriculum
development process. So, the current study was designed to bridge
this gap in the Ethiopian curriculum development context.
 Indian Journal of Health and Well-being 2020, 11(1-3), 66-74
The researchers' long years of professional experience at the
different levels of the educational system of Ethiopia noted the
presence of challenges facing in making teachers to participate in the
process of curriculum development. In addition, the researchers
observed that teachers devote most of their time in actual teaching
and very routine data reporting activities rather than actively
participating in the process of curriculum development. As a result,
teachers raise a question why they are always expected to implement
the curriculum which is developed by others without their
involvement kind of thing over time. Despite all these limitations,
there is a strong call with in the contemporary academic and
competitive education system for teachers to participate in the
curriculum development process (Solomon & Aschalew, 2019). It is
from this background that an attempt to examine teachers' degree of
participation in the different phases of the CDP and inhibiting factors
to teachers' participation in the process was initiated.
To this end, this research tried to give viable answer to the
following leading questions:
● To what extent do teachers participate in the different phases of the
curriculum development process?
● In which phases of the curriculum development do teachers show
high participation?
● What are the main factors that inhibit teachers' involvement in the
different phases of the curriculum development process?
Objectives of the study
● To assess teachers' degree of participation at each phase of the
curriculum development process.
● To put teacher's degree of participation in the different phases of
the curriculum development process in their order of priority.
● To identify major factors inhibiting teachers' participation in the
process of curriculum development.
Significance of the study
As long as curriculum development is believed to be the top priority
issue in bringing quality in the Ethiopian education system, this study
may have the following significances:
● It will serve as a source of information for teachers and other
concerned bodies regarding teachers' degree of participation in the
CDP.
● It will enable teachers, educators, curriculum developers, and
experts to give due attention to teachers' participation in the
different phases of curriculum development.
● It will serve as a guide for officials in their attempts to develop the
culture of teachers' participation in the different phases of the
curriculum development.
● It will enable teacher training institutions to design and offer
concerns-based courses that help their trainees to have a clear
awareness, understanding, knowledge and skill about curriculum
development.
● It will serve as a base for further study at different levels and seek
better solutions to the problem.
Delimitation of the study
The study is geographically delimited to government secondary
schools of Amhara Sayint Woreda. The scope of this study is also
conceptually delimited to exploring teachers' participation in the
different phases of curriculum development, i.e., needs assessment,
69
policy formulation, design and planning, curriculum construction,
curriculum implementation, and curriculum evaluation.
Method
Participants
The researchers have selected Amhara Sayint woreda as their focus
through purposive sampling technique as one of the researchers is
familiar with the actual setting and can access relevant data through
the support of colleagues and relatives working there in. The woreda
had three secondary schools. The researchers have accessed all of
these schools via comprehensive sampling technique. The data was
collected from school teachers, principals, vice principals, and the
supervisor of these three governmental secondary schools of the
Woreda. The reason for selecting these respondents as a source of
data was due to the fact that they have better information and
experiences about the topic of the study.
In these schools, there were 312 (73 female & 239 male)
teachers, one cluster supervisor, three principals and four vice
principals. Out of these, 125 (40%) teachers were selected using
proportional random sampling technique. That is, selections of the
teachers were made on the basis of academic qualification, field of
studies, gender representation and teaching experience. These
criteria had helped us to have relatively typical sample from
different academic qualifications, field of studies, genders, and
teaching experiences. In addition, the cluster supervisor,
principals and vice principals of the three schools were selected by
using comprehensive sampling technique as they were only 8 in
number (100%).
Research design
A concurrent mixed research design was employed. This design
assumes that using both qualitative and quantitative approaches in
combination provides a better understanding of the research
problems emanated from the social world than using either
approach alone (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007). The two
approaches are seen as complementary and thus the limitation of
one approach can be offset by the advantage of the other approach
(Creswell, 2009).
Instruments
To gain a holistic data regarding teachers' participation in the
process of curriculum development, the study employed
questionnaire and interview as instruments of data collection.
Questionnaire: Questionnaire was one of the instruments used to
collect relevant data from practitioners for the sake of providing
answer to the basic questions raised in the study. It was developed
based on the related literature reviewed here with. It was prepared
and administered in English language as all the respondents were
First Degree holders and were capable of understanding ideas
written in English. Based on the information obtained from the
literature, two sets of the questionnaires were developed. It was
composed of 52 close ended and 2 open ended items covering
personal profiles of the participants of the study, practitioners'
participation in curriculum development by using 5 rating scales (5
very high, 4 high, 3 Medium, 2 Low, 1 very low), which helped to
assess their extent of participation in the curriculum development
phases and to identify teachers' inhibiting factors in the process of
curriculum development.
70 MELESSE AND MELESSE/ PRACTITIONERS’ INVOLVEMENT AND CHALLENGES, THEY ENCOUNTERED

Interview: The researchers used semi-structured interview to explore Table 1: Internal reliability coefficient of the pilot test
practitioners' degree of participation in the process of curriculum
Phases of Curriculum Development Items Cronbach's Alpha
development. The main purpose of the interview was to collect more
data that substantiate or help us to triangulate the responses received Needs assessment 5 0.92
through the questionnaire. The interview was prepared and Policy formulation 5 0.83
administered to secondary school principals, vice principals and the Curriculum designing and planning 5 0.94
supervisor. Curriculum construction 5 0.84
Curriculum implementation 6 0.94
Pilot test of the instruments Evaluating curricular materials 8 0.93
To boost-up the validity of the instruments, three curriculum and Total Reliability Coefficient 34 0.90
instruction professors and the researchers themselves
commented the items before the pilot testing. Based on Data analyses
comments obtained from these experts, critical revisions were The quantitative data obtained through close-ended questionnaires
made on the items. was analyzed using percentages, one sample t-test and Spearman's
The pilot study was carried-out in Borena Secondary School. rank-order correlation coefficient (rho). Data collected through
The pilot school was located near to the study area. But, it was out open-ended questionnaire and semi-structured interview items were
of the main study and found in another Woreda. The draft analyzed by using thematic description along the main research
questionnaire and interview were distributed to 30 teachers, a questions. This data was cross checked with each other as well as
supervisor, a principal and two vice principals. After taking the with the quantitative data for factual verification. Finally, the data
pilot study, the researchers rejected irrelevant items and performed were analyzed and interpreted through word explanation. In the end,
some modifications on some of the questionnaire and interview both the qualitative and quantitative data were integrated for the
items before distributing the instruments to the final study. Last, final interpretation of the research findings.
average coefficient Cronbach's Alpha of 0.90 was obtained, which
indicated that the questionnaire had a high degree of reliability (see Results
Table 1). Characteristics of the respondents

Table 2: Respondents by sex, age and years of service

Item Frequency of responses Total
Teachers Vice principals Principals Supervisor
No %
Sex Male 98 4 3 1 106 80
Female 27 - - - 27 20
Total 125 4 - 1 133 100
Age 25 years and below 25 - - - 25 18.8
25-35 years 59 2 3 - 64 48.18
36-45 years 31 2 - 1 28 25.5
46-55 years 10 - - - 10 7.5
Total 125 4 3 1 133 100
Year of service 5 years and below 23 - - - 23 17.2
5-10 years 44 2 3 - 49 36.8
10-15 years 34 2 - 1 37 27.8
15-20 years 16 - - - 16 12
20 years and above 8 - - - 8 6
Total 125 4 3 1 133 100
Qualification B.A(B.SC) 111 4 1 - 116 87.2
MA (M.SC) 14 - 2 1 17 12.8
Total 125 4 3 1 133 100
Subjects taught Major area 119 4 2 1 122 91.7
Minor area 6 - 1 - 6 4.5
Others - - - - 5 3.7
Total 125 4 3 - 133 100

As shown in table 2, the participants of this study were 106 (80%) (48.18 %) and 28 (25.5 %) were between twenty-five to thirty-five
male and 27 (20%) female. With regards to age distribution, 64 and thirty six to forty five years, respectively. The rest 25 (18.8%)
 Indian Journal of Health and Well-being 2020, 11(1-3), 66-74 71

and 10 (7.5%) of the participants were below 25 years, and between
46 to 55 years, respectively. It could be observed that other than the
23 (17.2%) respondents, the remaining 91 (82.8%) had above five
years of service. With regards to qualification, majority of the
participants, i.e., 116 (87.2%) had First Degree, and 17 (12.8%) had
Master's Degree. In addition, 122 (91.7%) of the teachers were
assigned to teach in their major areas and the rest 13 (8.3%) were
made to serve both in their major and minor areas.
Teachers' perceived involvement in the different phases
of curriculum development

Table 3: One sample t-test analysis of teachers' perceived involvement in CDP

Phases of Curriculum Development N Mean SD T-test
Needs assessment 5 1.78 1.09 12.25
Policy Formulation & Decision Making 5 1.85 1.00 11.74
Curriculum designing &planning 6 1.82 1.11 10.81
Curriculum construction 5 1.82 1.00 12.03
Curriculum implementation 6 3.04 1.29 0.27
Evaluating the curriculum 7 2.86 1.15 1.21
Grand total 34 2.22 1.11 8.05

As depicted in Table 3, teachers' perceived involvement in needs the high ranked activities may be believed to maximize the
assessment (1.78) was found below the expected mean (3). And, the attainment of teachers, utilizing resources, realizing the
difference was found significant (mean=1.78 & t=11.25). This implementation of the curriculum and so on. In this kind of
implies that the respondents disclosed significantly low perceived involvement, teachers may share experience, work, learn and live
involvement in the phase of needs assessment. Teachers' responses in together co-operatively for the common goods of the country in
the phase of policy formulation clearly indicated that their general and for students in particular. Besides, the developed
involvement was significantly lower than the expected mean curriculum will be adopted and accepted by their peer groups and
(mean=1.85 & t=11.74). Concerning curriculum planning and become more implement able. Thus, the three areas were given
designing phase, the data implies that practitioners' perceived priority by the respondents.
involvement was significantly low as compared to the expected Table 4: Rank order of teachers' extent of perceived involvement in
mean (mean=1.82 & t=10.81). Teachers' perceived involvement in curriculum development
the phase of constructing curriculum materials was also found
significantly low as compared to the expected mean (mean=1.81 & Phases Cal.
t=12.03). Teachers' perceived involvement in curriculum Mean Rank
implementation was found slightly above the expected mean
Needs assessment 3.93 6
(mean=3.04, t= 1.29). This implies that practitioners' involvement in
Policy formulation and decision making 2.14 8
the phase of curriculum implementation (3.04) is a little bit above
Curriculum designing and planning 4.70 5
the expected mean (3). Lastly, the mean score of evaluating
Curriculum construction 3.71 7
curriculum materials indicated that the actual participation of
Curriculum implementation 5.71 1
teachers was significantly lower than the expected mean (x= 2.86,
Curriculum revision or renewal 5.10 3
t-value 1.21). The interview data also confirmed that the
Evaluating the curriculum materials 5.63 2
involvement of teachers' in curriculum development was in a
Resolution of problems related to 4.99 4
critical problem. That is, there is significant problem in initiating the
curriculum development process
practitioners to involve in CDP. Practitioners merely focus on
teaching and learning at the cost of participating in other phases of The respondents perceived that policy formulation, curriculum
the CDP. construction, and needs assessment are mostly performed by
experts, officials and curriculum specialists who are working at
Teachers' degree of perceived involvement in the phases the higher level of the education system rather than considering
of curriculum development them as the roles of practitioners. In this line, the interview
The data in table 4 disclosed the rank order of teachers' involvement participants confirmed that most of the time teachers'
in curriculum development at various phases. Accordingly, involvement is low in CDP. But teachers involve in curriculum
perceived degree of involvement in curriculum implementation, implementation. This means that majority of the teachers failed to
evaluating the curriculum materials, curriculum revision, and get the chance to involve in all phases of CDP. In the same way, the
resolution of problems related to curriculum development process, data received from the interview held with one school principal
curriculum designing and planning, needs assessment, curriculum and one supervisor also revealed that the government failed to
construction, and policy formulation and decision making were encourage teachers to involve in CDP by arranging different
ranked in that order, respectively. This could be due to the fact that trainings.
72 MELESSE AND MELESSE/ PRACTITIONERS’ INVOLVEMENT AND CHALLENGES, THEY ENCOUNTERED

Rank order of institution and practitioner related factors
to involvement in CDP
Table 5 secured data about the rank order of the major institutional
factors promoting teachers' involvement in the areas of CDP. Thus,
encouragement of teachers' involvement by availing financial and
material incentives, availability of training and upgrading teachers,
and availing conducive working conditions were ranked as 1, 2, and
3,respectively.The three institutions related factors were, therefore,
considered as the major promoting factors of teachers' involvement
in the CDP.

Table 5: Rank order of institution related factors to teachers' participation in CDP

Item Respondents
Mean rate Rank
Acceptance of teachers' ideas and views 2.30 5
Presence of financial and material incentives 4.21 1
Presence of conducive working conditions 2.49 3
Availability of training and upgrading secondary school teachers 3.63 2
Availability of strong relationships between supervisor and principals with teachers 2.38 4

In addition, the respondents have identified the following as
additional factors:
● Respecting teachers' right in all aspects of social and economic
affairs, participating government employers and parents in the
process of curriculum development, providing continuous and un-
disrupted encouragements.
● Providing workshops, seminars, panels, symposiums, continuous
awareness orientations, short and long-term trainings and
upgrading programs should have to be considered.
● Incentives and rewards should be given for those teachers who have
special knowledge and skill in order to enhance creativity and innovation.
The researchers asked the supervisor, school principals and vice
principals to explain the basic institution related factors that affect
the effectiveness of teachers' involvement in CDP. They replied as:
incentives and rewards, the presence of coordination between
teachers and school principals, and appropriate support from
curriculum experts from the zone, region, and ministry of education
were more serious factors which encourage teachers' involvement in
the curriculum development process. They also suggested a training
centre to conduct proper needs assessment of their localities,
providing adequate budget, relevant policy, willingness of
government to initiate teachers to be involved in curriculum
development and informing teachers about the developmental
phases of curriculum were considered as the most valuable factors
that encourage teachers' involvement in the different phases of the
curriculum development process.
Table 7: Rank order of Teacher related factors involvement in the
CDP
Factors Respondents
Mean rate
Availability of resources 3.02
Academic qualification 2.78
Teaching experience 2.58
Motivation 4.12
Attitudes towards curriculum change 2.30
As indicated in Table 7, lack of motivation, lack of resources and
academic qualification received the highest rank order, which
implies that they are the major influencing factors of teachers'
involvement in the CDP. On the other side, teaching experience and
attitudes towards curriculum change are the least in their rank order.
Moreover, teachers were requested to give their further suggestions
using the open-ended questionnaire items. As to their responses,
lack of teachers' awareness about the task and sharing experience
among teachers were considered as additional factors.
In addition, interview was conducted with school principals, vice
principals and supervisor to check whether or not they gave any
encouragement for teachers to get involved in CDP. The supervisor
noted that they did not give any training and make discussion with
the teachers other than supervising the implementation of the
curriculum. He also confessed that they did not design a systematic
way of supporting teachers' involvement in the CDP. These
happened so due to the fact that they had no sufficient time and were
highly overloaded in other daily routines. During the interview,
other participants noted that lack of government attention and teachers'
attitude towards curriculum development as the major problems
encountered in CDP. They also noted that there was no conducive
situation for providing the training, systematic evaluation and
incentive for participating in the curriculum development process.
Discussion and findings of the study
The findings of this study showed that teachers' involvement at the
different phases of CDP other than implementation was below the
expected mean. This study showed the existence of limiting factors
to teachers' involvement in needs assessment like lack of resources,
being inexperienced and low qualification, etc. In this line,
Awgichew (2012) attest that there was no responsible teacher for
curriculum development. In addition, Yagya (2015) asserted the
Rank
existence of barriers to the participation of teacher in the policy
2 formulation tasks. Supporting this finding, Sinei (2013) noted that
3 within sub-Saharan countries little attention is being paid to the
4 subject of policy formulation by the minister of education and its
1 attendant implementers and interest groups. The curriculum design
5 and planning phase reveals some common problems like design is
unachievable because of existing conditions (financial, academic
qualification) (Wiles & Bondi, 1998; Messick & Reynods, 1991). In
 Indian Journal of Health and Well-being 2020, 11(1-3), 66-74
relation to this point, Yagya (2015) asserted that polices are not
sufficient for addressing teachers' involvement in designing/
planning the curriculum. There is a gap between policies and
practices of teachers' involvement in curriculum construction
(Yagya, 2015). In support of the current finding on curriculum
implementation, Yagya (2015) indicated that teachers' have more
opportunity to get involved in curriculum implementation. Lewy
(1991) further asserted that teachers are implementers of the
curriculum; they have professional responsibility to participate in the
implementation tasks. Supporting the findings related to the last
phase of CDP, Yagya (2015) confirmed that teachers failed to receive
sufficient opportunity to be involved in evaluating curriculum
materials but they have more opportunity to participate in curriculum
implementation. Supplementing this finding, UNESCO (1999) also
noted that factors such as knowledge of the subject matter,
pedagogical skills and motivation are acutely affecting teachers'
involvement in evaluating the curriculum materials in the sub-
Saharan countries.
Rank order of teachers' degree of involvement in the
different phases of the CDP
As a response to this intent, the spearman's rank-order analysis
indicated that the involvement of teachers' in curriculum
implementation, evaluating the curriculum materials and curriculum
revision were given the highest rank order, respectively. Different
people are expected to involve in the curriculum implementation
phase of CDP, but perhaps the one whose role is the most important in
checking that the programs are successfully implemented is the
teacher (Shiundu & Omulando, 1992). This means that curriculum
implementation will not be effective if there is no true involvement of
the teachers in the instructional process. Teachers can also use
curricula when trying to see what to teach to students. Without the
involvement of teachers, teaching-learning will be impossible
(UNESCO, 2005). This preposition confirms that teachers are the
back bone of curricular implementation. Research further confirmed
that evaluating the curriculum materials is expected to be a
significant responsibility of teachers (Marew, 2000a). Teachers'
involvement in curriculum development is considered crucial for
many authors. Carl (1993) for example, noted that teachers must not
be mere implementers but also development agents who are able to
develop, apply, and evaluate the curriculum in a dynamic and
creative way. Last, teachers' involvement in evaluating the
curriculum materials is also a responsibility laid upon them.
Rank order of institution and teacher related factors to
practitioner's involvement in the CDP
The result indicated that encouragement of teachers' involvement by
providing financial and material incentives, availability of training
for teachers, and presence of conducive working conditions were
ranked orderly from 1, 2, and 3 respectively, which imply that they
are the major promoting factors of the activities. In support of this
point, Nardos (1999) disclosed the fact that incentives, free tuition
and money are some of the possible encouragement strategies to
attract teachers' involvement in the CDP. In relation to this point,
Pratt (1980) asserted that people will not implement a change unless
there are appropriate rewards for doing so.
Teachers' lack of motivation was considered the major influencing
factors of the task, respectively. Supporting this finding, Bishop
(1989) revealed that improvement must be accompanied by
73
incentives. Motivation is also used to explain initiation, direction,
intensity, and persistence of goal directed behavior (Pratt, 1980).
Academic qualification is another variable in determining the extent
of teachers' participation in the CDP. With regard to the association
between involvement and qualification, Nardos (1999) noted that
better qualified teachers seek more involvement in the CDP due to
the desire to use their technical expertise.
Conclusion
On the basis of the major findings of this study, the following
conclusions were drawn:
● It can be concluded that the effort made by teachers' in CDP were
low except one single phase(curriculum implementation).
● It is possible to conclude that teachers' levels of participation in
the three phases (policy formulation, curriculum construction, &
needs assessment) were very low.
● It is possible to conclude that the presence of financial and
material incentives, availability of training for teachers,
conducive working conditions, incentives and rewards and
acceptance of teachers' ideas and views were the major promoting
factors for teachers' involvement in the CDP.
Recommendations
On the basis of the conclusion drawn, the following
recommendations were forwarded:
● Education officials in the decision line should give due attention
for the training of curriculum workers, coordinators, and
principals who can not only develop and improve the educational
materials, but also imparting and encouraging teachers to
participate in the different phases of the CDP.
● In order to develop an appropriate and relevant curriculum,
attention should be given to teachers not only because they are the
sole interpreters of the curriculum materials in the classroom but
also, they are the ones who can evaluate the shortcomings of these
materials and suggest constructive ideas about it. To achieve all
these, education officials should strive to organize intensive
training for teachers.
● In order to maximize teachers' involvement at the various phases
of the curriculum development, it needs developing positive
relationships and collaboration at all levels of the educational
organizations in general and at schools in particular.
● In order to formulate appropriate mechanisms of curriculum
improvement and quality control in centers of curriculum
development, educational officials should produce appropriate
guidelines and frameworks that could give clear directions to the
questions such as what, how, who, when, by whom and to whom
the curriculum be developed and/or improved as well as
implemented.
● Teachers should be made to lead, perform, design, develop,
evaluate, and improve the curriculum. To this end, education
officials should initiate teachers' commitment, awareness and
level of participation in the CDP.
References
Akker, J. V., & Kuiper, W. (2007). Research on models for instructional design. In J.M.
Spector, M.D. Merrill, J. van Merrienboer, and M.P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of
research for educational communications and technology (pp.739-748). New York:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
74 MELESSE AND MELESSE/ PRACTITIONERS’ INVOLVEMENT AND CHALLENGES, THEY ENCOUNTERED
Alsubaie, M. (2016). Curriculum development: Teacher involvement in curriculum.
Journal of Education and Practice, 7(9), 106-107. ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper), ISSN
2222-288X (Online).
Altschuld, J. W., & Witkin, B. R. (1995). Planning and conducting needs assessments: A
practical guide. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Amade, S., & Gebre, K., (1989). Problem of marking curriculum development effective
versus hints for solutions. Education Journal, MoE., 3, 4.
Ambaye T. (1999). Curriculum evaluation: Monitoring the harmony of syllabuses with
the new primary level curriculum vis-à-vis standard models and new education and
training policy. The Ethiopian Journal of Education, XIX(1), 1-23.
Awgichew, F. (2012). The practices of curriculum development, implementation and
evaluation in Ethiopian defence training main department. Bahir Dar University
Graduate Studies (Unpublished Master's Thesis).
Bishop, A. J. (1988). Mathematics education in its cultural context. Educational Studies
in Mathematics, 19, 179-191.
Bishop, J. (1989). Alternative strategies for education. London: Macmillan Publisher.
Bonser, S., & Grundy, S. (1988). Reflective deliberative in the formulation of a school
curriculum policy. Journal of Curriculum Study, 20, 35-45. Published online: 8 June
2019
Carl, A. E. (2009). Teacher empowerment through curriculum development: Theory.
Cape Town, South Africa: Juta and Company Ltd.
Chase, J.B., & Gwynn, M.J. (1969).Curriculum principles and social trends (4th ed.).
London: the Macmillan Publishing Company.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrisson, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th
ed.). London: Routlegde.
Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research design: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed method
approaches (3rd ed.). London: SAGE Publication, Inc.
Doll, R. C. (1996).Curriculum improvement: Decision making process (9th ed.). Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Fullan, M. C. (1991). The new meanings of educational change (2nd ed). Ontario:
Teachers Ltd.
Hawes, H. (1979). Curriculum and reality in Africa primary schools. England: Longman
Group Limited.
Hawn, H., & Frymier, B. (1970). Curriculum improvement for better schools.
Worthington: Charles A. Company.
Kern, D.E., Thomas, P.A., Howard, D.M., & Bass, E.B. (2009). Curriculum development
for medical education: A six-step approach (2nd ed.). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
Univ. Press.
Kimpston, R.D., & Rogers, K.B. (1988). Predisposition, participatory role and
perception of teachers, principals and community members in collaborative
curriculum planning process. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 20(4), 351-367.
Lewy, A. (1991). International Encyclopaedia of Curriculum. Great Britain: Maxwell
MacMillan Pergamum Publishing Company.
Marew, Z.(2000a). Curriculum Implementation and Evaluation: A course material.
A.A: Addis Ababa Printing Press.
Marsh, C., & Willis, B. (1995). Curriculum: Alternative Approaches, Ongoing issues.
New York: A Simon and Schuster company.
Marsh, C. J (2009). Key concepts for understanding curriculum (4th ed.). New York:
Routledge.
McNeil, J.D. (1996). Curriculum: A comprehensive introduction. United States: Little
Brown Ltd.
Melke, K. (2009). Curriculum relevance, practice and challenges of pre-primary
education in Bahir Dar town. Bahir Dar University, (Unpublished Master's Thesis)
Messick, K.E., & Reynods, R.G. (1991). Middle level in curriculum action. New York:
Lomgman Publishing Group.
MOE (1994). Ethiopian Education and Training Policy. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Nardos, A. (1999). Comparative Education through Distance Education, A course
material. AAU, Ethiopia.
Niggussie, M. (2008). Awareness of teachers about their professional responsibility,
attitude and beliefs in the process of curriculum development and their actual
participation. Unpublished thesis, Bahir Dar University.
Omulando, J., & Shiundu, S. (1992). Curriculum Theory and Practice in Kenya.
Nairobi: Oxford University Press.
Ornstein, A.C., & Hunkins, F.P. (2013). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and
issues. Boston: Pearson Ltd.
Pratt, D. (1980). Curriculum Design and Development. New York: Brace Iovaovit,
Inc.
Rogers, A., & Taylor, P. (1998). Participatory curriculum development in agricultural
education: A training guide. FAO, Rome.
Saylor, J.D., & Lewis, A. W. (1981). Curriculum Planning for better teaching and
learning. New York: Holt Saunders.
Seyoum, T. (1996). Attempts of educational reform in Ethiopia: Atop-down or a bottom-
UP reform? Ethiopian Journal of Education, 16(l), 1-37.
Sinei, J.C. (2013). Factors influencing implementation of curriculum in Kenya: A case
of music syllabus in high school. PhD Dissertation, Eldoret-Moi University,
Unpublished.
Solomon, M., & Bishaw, A. (2017). Historical analysis of the challenges and
opportunities of higher education in Ethiopia. Higher Education for the Future, the
Kerela State Higher Education Counsel, 4(1), 31-43. SAGE Publications.
Solomon, M., & Tadege, (2019). The Ethiopian curriculum development and
implementation Vis-à-Vis Schwab`s signs of crisis in the field of curriculum. Cogent
Education Journal, 6(1), 1-16, DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.16
33147.
Solomon, M. (1999). The Integration of Instructional Media into the Ethiopian
Educational System Curricula. MA thesis, AAU, (Unpublished).
Solomon, M. (2015). The contribution of teacher education program curricula to
prospective teachers' multicultural competence. PhD Dissertation, AAU,
(Unpublished).
UNESCO (1999). World Declaration of on Education for all. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO (2005). Teacher Involvement in Educational Change. Chile: Regional
Bureau of Education for Latin America and the Caribbean.
UNESCO (2017). Developing and Implementing Curriculum Frameworks.
Switzerland; Geneva.
Varghese, N. V. (2008). Contribution of higher education and research to education.
paper commissioned for the EFA Global Monitoring Report 2009: Overcoming
Inequality: Why governance matters”.
Veena, P. (2016). Importance of needs analysis in curriculum development for
vocational purposes. International Journal of English Language, Literature and
Humanities, IV(V), 2321-7065.
Wiles, J., & Bondi, J. (1998). Curriculum development: A guide to practice (5th ed).
New Jersey: prentice Hall.
Yagya, P.B. (2015). Teachers' participation in curriculum development process
(Dissertation). Dhulikhel, Nepal; Kathmandu University.
Received January 10, 2020
Revision received January 21, 2020
Accepted January 22, 2020